Hello Ned:
   Your point is well taken.  Unfortunately, it is very difficult to
   convince the average listener, even those acquainted with the actual
   sound of the lute, that a real, dry, non-reverberant sound is ideal.
   The problem, as I see (or hear) it is that more people have heard the
   lute on recordings than live and close up.  Certain
   prolifically-recorded players have opted for a sound that was described
   some years back by a Gramophone reviewer as a 'psycho-acoustic
   nightmare, distant and close at the same time'.  If we don't gravitate
   towards a reverberant sound, we can be easily dismissed as not ideal.
   Another dimension of the problem lies with available technology.  It is
   very, very difficult to find a recording engineer who understands the
   simplicity of the lute sound well enough to record it simplistically.
   When we first approached our current engineer (Grammy-award winner,
   Will Russell) and played as an example our favorite recording of Emma
   Kirby and Jakob Lindberg on BIS, his immediate reaction was to ask
   permission to make us sound better than that.  It was a process, but we
   finally convinced him that a simple mic placement yielded the sound and
   natural balance we were seeking.
   We have experimented on Youtube with a few different representations of
   sound, and it is interesting to see the results.  Typically, the more
   reverberant sound seems to get more repeated hits.  Our recent posting
   of Sicut cervus/Sitivit anima by Palestrina is recorded in a live space
   with absolutely no tampering with the Zoom H2, place about 10 feet
   away.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUDplApE45U
   But we deliberately recorded the Christ Child Lullaby at home in a dry
   acoustic with the Zoom closely placed in an attempt to judge how
   listeners would react.  The appeal of the music seems to have attracted
   hits despite the dry sound.
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atiweh44WU
   Personally, I agree that one does not want to hear a lute's volume
   boosted to represent something it is not.  The idea of having my head
   trapped inside of a lute makes me afraid.  But the fact is, we have to
   aim for a standard that is not going to drive the average listener away
   because the music is 'better than it sounds.'  A quandary indeed.
   Best,
   Ron Andrico
   www.mignarda.com
   > Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 13:53:26 -0400
   > To: [email protected]
   > CC: [email protected]
   > From: [email protected]
   > Subject: [LUTE] Re: Vice Nisee
   >
   > I think my point about lutes being 'enlarged' in the recording
   process could best be made by referring to specific lute recordings.
   Comparing Jakob Lindberg's recordings of Dowland (reissued on Brilliant
   ) with Hopkinson Smiths recording "Dowland: A Dream" on Naive, I hear
   considerably more reverberation on the Smith recording than on the one
   of Lindberg. At the same approximate volume, Smith's instrument sounds
   much larger (to me) than Lindberg's. More importantly, Lindberg's
   instrument sounds more natural to me than Smith's; more like what I'm
   accustomed to hearing from a lute played live. To be sure, the
   recordings of both instruments underwent some electronic processing
   before being transferred to CD. My subjective impression is that
   Smith's received more added reverb than Lindberg's. That's what I hear
   in the Vice Nisee video/audio and - perhaps(?) - what Suzanne also
   heard.
   >
   > Ned
   > On Jul 22, 2010, at 6:37 PM, howard posner wrote:
   >
   > > The lute would necessarily be amplified and there would necessarily
   be microphones; that's the nature of electronic transmission of sound.
   If it sounds too loud for you, turn down the volume on your computer.
   If it then doesn't sound loud enough, turn the volume up. Repeat
   process until it sounds just right.
   > >
   > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 3:05 PM, Edward Mast wrote:
   > >
   > >> I agree with Suzanne, both about the sound and the playing. I've
   made this observation here before; the tendency of recording engineers
   today seems to be to make lutes sound as large as concert grand pianos.
   > >>
   > >> Ned
   > >> On Jul 22, 2010, at 11:36 AM, Suzanne Angevine wrote:
   > >>
   > >>> Was it the acoustic that was lush? I almost had the feeling that
   it was an amplified instrument and was looking for the cord or tiny
   mike somewhere. But it was nice playing.
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > >
   > > To get on or off this list see list information at
   > > http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
   >
   >
   >
     __________________________________________________________________

   Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from
   your inbox. [1]See how. --

References

   1. 
http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2

Reply via email to